SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
No, you are locked into using Microsoft's operating system.
Keep trollin trollin trollin trollin trollin
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you are locked into using Microsoft's operating system.
YES YOU CAN....ATI is free to support this if they want to.
I am my own source. ATI was engaged with the devs but they never even visited the studio.. they started emailing as soon as they saw public interest in the demo. They weren't committed from the start at all.
No, you are locked into using Microsoft's operating system.
Are you going somewhere with that statement?
No you can't. Nvidia owns it, nvidia controls it, nvidia determines who gets to implement it. ATI can't just make a CUDA driver without licensing it from Nvidia.
In other words I can just completely ignore you, got it.
It's not a strawman.. what exactly would you say I am leaving out here? This is exactly what has been said here. Are you suggesting that there is some third alternative where NVIDIA uses direct compute for the benefit of ATI? Do you really think that's good from a business perspective? They want to enable and reward their loyal customerbase.. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Not to mention they wouldn't have been able to make this work with the gimped version of compute shader for older hardware .. CS4.0.. meaning if they'd used directcompute, they would've limited the install base that could use this to AMD and NV dx11 cards. There are tens of millions more CUDA capable GPUs out there than there are DX11 cards, so it makes sense. Plus its cool that its being enabled back to G80 via CUDA... it's not locking anyone into the latest generation to get the new stuff.
Yes they can!!!!!
Are you being willfully ignorant or something?
In case you are too lazy....
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=cuda+on+ati&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m2&oq=
In particular
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/cuda_running_a_radeon
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2324555,00.asp
http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...d-to-support-nvidia-s-cuda-technology--612041
It is AMD/ATI that do not want cuda to run on their cards.
It's funny that people can be told the absolute bottom line truth and completely choose to ignore it. There's nothing more I can do but give you that. It's your choice whether you will accept it or let cognitive dissonance get in the way.
Do you understand the concept of "licensing"? ATI would have to pay nvidia to support CUDA.
No, you've only stated what you *claim* the truth is - and you're credibility is minimal at best. Since you can't source your claims, as far as I'm concerned you're just making shit up, *especially* since there is evidence directly contrary to what you are claiming.
wow 1 game that uses Cuda....and everyone is freakin out.
Either way, Cuda is not going to stick.
Remember when the FX5900 came out and they didnt want to go by MS DX standard....that sure got them far didnt it?
The water that the OP links looks just like Crysis to me....
So If crysis can do it on any video card...why do we need Cuda
Yes I do. Nvidia is NOT charging anything for this RTFA. Do you not get that?
I have given you plenty of sources. You just give me...well nothing. You basically have been condescending towards me and others all while not supporting anything you say.
Every single one of the CUDA capable GPUs can run DirectCompute *AND* OpenCL. Currently DirectCompute and OpenCL can run on MORE cards than CUDA, as they both can run on every CUDA card in addition to a significant chunk of ATI cards as well. DirectCompute may be in DX11, but it can run on DX10 cards.
OpenCL would also have the advantage of seamlessly falling back to the CPU.
Nvidia implemented it in the best way to help Nvidia. Not the best way to help gamers.
I *am* addressing the main point. Since I've already stated basically the same damn thing 2 times and you just ignore it, I'm not going to repeat it a third time.
They could do it by delivering these effects via DX11 instead of CUDA, thus widening the customer experience of the game even more. Actually, I put this squarely on the game developer to do, it isn't AMD's or NVIDIA's responsibility to make sure the game has the best experience on both video cards. What I see happening here is the developer being ok with the game delivering two different experiences based on what brand video card you are using. I'm not sure I like that, personally.
Actually you didn't read your own article.
Right smack in the middle of the ExtremeTech article it states that AMD/ATI would have to license PhysX in order to hardware accelerate the CUDA code. CUDA itself is worthless to AMD/ATI without PhysX.
But what about PhysX? Nvidia claims they would be happy for ATI to adopt PhysX support on Radeons. To do so would require ATI to build a CUDA driver, with the benefit that of course other CUDA apps would run on Radeons as well.
Really? can you point it out to me? I think you mean,
So ATI would have to support cuda to run Physx, not the other way around. And cuda is not worthless without Physx
ATI would also be required to license PhysX in order to hardware accelerate it, of course, but Nvidia maintains that the licensing terms are extremely reasonableit would work out to less than pennies per GPU shipped.
From what I have read, you have addressed nothing and have done nothing but complain. As someone already pointed out, the feature thru Direct Compute/OCL on anything other than DX11 hardware is gimped and more than likely does not perform up to par. CUDA, even on lowly 8800GTs runs far faster and better than DC/OCL does on even a 4870.
Really? can you point it out to me? I think you mean,
So ATI would have to support cuda to run Physx, not the other way around. And cuda is not worthless without Physx
ExtremeTech said:But what about PhysX? Nvidia claims they would be happy for ATI to adopt PhysX support on Radeons. To do so would require ATI to build a CUDA driver, with the benefit that of course other CUDA apps would run on Radeons as well. ATI would also be required to license PhysX in order to hardware accelerate it, of course, but Nvidia maintains that the licensing terms are extremely reasonable
You make me laugh. How about you actually quote the ENTIRE statement instead of just the piece that benefits you. Here I'll do you a favor by highlighting the piece you keep leaving out.
Though it has been submitted to no outside standards body, it is in fact completely free to download the specs and write CUDA apps, and even completely free to write a CUDA driver to allow your company's hardware (CPU, GPU, whatever) to run apps written in the CUDA environment.
Running cuda is free. Why would the author contradict him/her self?
Though it has been submitted to no outside standards body, it is in fact completely free to download the specs and write CUDA apps, and even completely free to write a CUDA driver to allow your company's hardware (CPU, GPU, whatever) to run apps written in the CUDA environment.
it is in fact completely free to download the specs and write CUDA apps
and even completely free to write a CUDA driver to allow your company's hardware (CPU, GPU, whatever) to run apps written in the CUDA environment.
What are the license fees? Is this public knowledge? Are we certain there are license fees?The article implies that it is free to support CUDA through software, but does not mention the cost of implementing CUDA on hardware or licensing feed associated it.
What are the license fees? Is this public knowledge? Are we certain there are license fees?
I wouldnt say fail Physx...but damn, at least make it where the effects couldnt be done via CPU/ATi or claiming that only CUDA/Physx can do soft shadowing or depth of field...I mean, the water is in no way better than Crysis with CUDA...all it does is add swells and the like, which, again, is something that Crysis already does ON THE CPU with no Physx required.
Soft shadows and depth of field? How is this CUDA? Didnt know that soft shadows required physics processing...
Again, Nvidia just ass kissing to get what they want only for their customers...I am really trying not to hate Nvidia, but damn, theyre complete dicks with this shit...
This is how the meeting went:
"Duhrr...lets add some stuff for this game and claim only we can do it...duhrr (drools)..."
"Bahhh...what can we do?//...add stuff like soft shadows and depth of field??/"
"Dahh...but that means ATi can do it too..."
"But uhh...not if we claim its CUDA and limit only to our hardware thru the drivers and software!"
"Brwiant!"
Meeting done!
I don't think nVidia would spend time and money on GPU processing and give away the results for free. 11235 was directly stating that they are welcome to use it, which I believe is doubtful.
You're fucking taking it out of context entirely... nowhere during that video did they say this is only possible with Nvidia hardware, BUT it is Nvidia so it's also doubling as advertising for them just like when games same "Meant to be played with Nvidia".
All they said it's possible... and i'm pretty sure that if it was ATI was doing this you wouldn't have shit to say. You're just trying to flip this into something it isnt.
What I said is true. The information is out there, and I have posted sources supporting my claims. Not a SINGLE counter example to anything I have said has been shown. Just a lot of fluff and misunderstanding.
A LOT of misunderstanding...
I am done with this thread...please feel free to spread misinformation.
A fair stance, but it'd do you well to substantiate it with something rather than try and discount it with conjecture about phantom licensing fees.I don't think nVidia would spend time and money on GPU processing and give away the results for free. 11235 was directly stating that they are welcome to use it, which I believe is doubtful.
A fair stance, but it'd do you well to substantiate it with something rather than try and discount it with conjecture about phantom licensing fees.
I don't have to prove my point; CUDA will never be licensed or implemented by ATi. The only think I "have" to do to "win" the argument is disprove or imply doubt that nVidia would love to give ATi CUDA.
The entire argument is pointless, and has little to do with the topic.
People are upset because they aren't getting the same game as nVidia users are. And rightly so.
Now compare CUDA on an 8800GT to DC/OCL on an 8800GT.
An 8800GT is more than twice as fast as a 5870 at stock doing the program in OCL.
That is one particular program, hardly conclusive. Indeed I could post the following link to a thread which shows the exact opposite.
http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/16920-directcompute-and-opencl-benchmark.html
I will concede that CUDA is superior to OpenCL though.